Scientists Are Starting to Take Warp Drives Seriously, Especially This One Concept

It’s hard living in a relativistic Universe, where even the nearest stars are so far away and the speed of light is absolute. It is little wonder then why science fiction franchises routinely employ FTL (Faster-than-Light) as a plot device.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Scientists Are Starting to Take Warp Drives Seriously, Especially This One Concept

It’s hard living in a relativistic Universe, where even the nearest stars are so far away and the speed of light is absolute. It is little wonder then why science fiction franchises routinely employ FTL (Faster-than-Light) as a plot device.

more…

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is correct.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Scientists Are Starting to Take Warp Drives Seriously, Especially This One Concept

It’s hard living in a relativistic Universe, where even the nearest stars are so far away and the speed of light is absolute. It is little wonder then why science fiction franchises routinely employ FTL (Faster-than-Light) as a plot device.

more…

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is correct.

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is almost certainly wrong.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Scientists Are Starting to Take Warp Drives Seriously, Especially This One Concept

It’s hard living in a relativistic Universe, where even the nearest stars are so far away and the speed of light is absolute. It is little wonder then why science fiction franchises routinely employ FTL (Faster-than-Light) as a plot device.

more…

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is correct.

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is almost certainly wrong.

Speed limits are made to be broken.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is correct.

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is almost certainly wrong.

Speed limits are made to be broken.

Well, yes and no. I used to be able to think of half a dozen ways that the speed of light could be exceeded. Now I can only think of four.

But warp drive is not one of them. Douglas Adams infinite improbably drive is one of them, but there is a drawback to that, a nearly 100% probability of ending up dead.

mollwollfumble said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is almost certainly wrong.

Speed limits are made to be broken.

Well, yes and no. I used to be able to think of half a dozen ways that the speed of light could be exceeded. Now I can only think of four.

But warp drive is not one of them. Douglas Adams infinite improbably drive is one of them, but there is a drawback to that, a nearly 100% probability of ending up dead.

Think Douglas Adams did warn us of that probability.

mollwollfumble said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is almost certainly wrong.

Speed limits are made to be broken.

Well, yes and no. I used to be able to think of half a dozen ways that the speed of light could be exceeded. Now I can only think of four.

But warp drive is not one of them. Douglas Adams infinite improbably drive is one of them, but there is a drawback to that, a nearly 100% probability of ending up dead.

So what are the other three?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Scientists Are Starting to Take Warp Drives Seriously, Especially This One Concept

It’s hard living in a relativistic Universe, where even the nearest stars are so far away and the speed of light is absolute. It is little wonder then why science fiction franchises routinely employ FTL (Faster-than-Light) as a plot device.

more…

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is correct.

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is almost certainly wrong.

All Science, Is Wrong ¿

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is correct.

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is almost certainly wrong.

All Science, Is Wrong ¿

all models, are wrong.

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t take warp drives seriously. The more I learn, the more I accept that general relativity is almost certainly wrong.

All Science, Is Wrong ¿

all models, are wrong.

sure, how wrong ¿

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

All Science, Is Wrong ¿

all models, are wrong.

sure, how wrong ¿

the finer the detail the less wrong.

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

All Science, Is Wrong ¿

all models, are wrong.

sure, how wrong ¿

Most models are too skinny.

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

ChrispenEvan said:

all models, are wrong.

sure, how wrong ¿

the finer the detail the less wrong.

Unfortunately that isn’t always the case.

theories aren’t right or wrong they are either useful or not useful.

ChrispenEvan said:

theories aren’t right or wrong they are either useful or not useful.

I disagree.

There are some theories that are probably right but not particularly useful, and many that are wrong but very useful.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

theories aren’t right or wrong they are either useful or not useful.

I disagree.

There are some theories that are probably right but not particularly useful, and many that are wrong but very useful.

errrrrr so you agree that theories are either useful or not useful and that being either right or wrong isn’t a concern?

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

theories aren’t right or wrong they are either useful or not useful.

I disagree.

There are some theories that are probably right but not particularly useful, and many that are wrong but very useful.

errrrrr so you agree that theories are either useful or not useful and that being either right or wrong isn’t a concern?

No, I don’t agree with that at all.

It is worthwhile investigating theories even if they are not particularly useful, and it is worthwhile correcting useful but wrong theories to make them even more useful.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

There are some theories that are probably right but not particularly useful, and many that are wrong but very useful.

errrrrr so you agree that theories are either useful or not useful and that being either right or wrong isn’t a concern?

No, I don’t agree with that at all.

It is worthwhile investigating theories even if they are not particularly useful, and it is worthwhile correcting useful but wrong theories to make them even more useful.

LOL, you’re just not following it.

surely there is an extent to which models are correct

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

errrrrr so you agree that theories are either useful or not useful and that being either right or wrong isn’t a concern?

No, I don’t agree with that at all.

It is worthwhile investigating theories even if they are not particularly useful, and it is worthwhile correcting useful but wrong theories to make them even more useful.

LOL, you’re just not following it.

Correct.

I’m saying what I think, not what you think.

SCIENCE said:

surely there is an extent to which models are correct

Yes.

All science, is right.

SCIENCE said:

surely there is an extent to which models are correct

I would think so. except models that have now been discarded because they are incorrect. Heliocentricism of our solar system for one. though aspects of that may still be correct but I don’t know the full details of it to comment accurately.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, I don’t agree with that at all.

It is worthwhile investigating theories even if they are not particularly useful, and it is worthwhile correcting useful but wrong theories to make them even more useful.

LOL, you’re just not following it.

Correct.

I’m saying what I think, not what you think.

but you are bringing points in that have no bearing on the original statement. that’s why you aren’t following it.

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL, you’re just not following it.

Correct.

I’m saying what I think, not what you think.

but you are bringing points in that have no bearing on the original statement. that’s why you aren’t following it.

No, you are failing to see the relevance of my comments, that’s why you aren’t following it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I disagree.

There are some theories that are probably right but not particularly useful, and many that are wrong but very useful.

errrrrr so you agree that theories are either useful or not useful and that being either right or wrong isn’t a concern?

No, I don’t agree with that at all.

It is worthwhile investigating theories even if they are not particularly useful, and it is worthwhile correcting useful but wrong theories to make them even more useful.

how is worth investigating not useful

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

errrrrr so you agree that theories are either useful or not useful and that being either right or wrong isn’t a concern?

No, I don’t agree with that at all.

It is worthwhile investigating theories even if they are not particularly useful, and it is worthwhile correcting useful but wrong theories to make them even more useful.

how is worth investigating not useful

Perhaps they are somewhat useful

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, I don’t agree with that at all.

It is worthwhile investigating theories even if they are not particularly useful, and it is worthwhile correcting useful but wrong theories to make them even more useful.

how is worth investigating not useful

Perhaps they are somewhat useful

I was taught that even negative evidence is valid.

Pretty much switched off when they mentioned Eagleworks.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

errrrrr so you agree that theories are either useful or not useful and that being either right or wrong isn’t a concern?

No, I don’t agree with that at all.

It is worthwhile investigating theories even if they are not particularly useful, and it is worthwhile correcting useful but wrong theories to make them even more useful.

how is worth investigating not useful

Depends what you mean by “useful”.

All Math, Is Pure